According to a news story on nanotechnology, in the future, the wealthy will be able to make use of nanotechnology to modify parts of their existing or future genetic heritage, ie they can alter body parts in non-invasive procedures, or modify future children's anomalies. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/fully-frank/the-tools-to-live-forever/story-e6frfinf-1225791751968

these will then help them evolve into a different species, a better species.

ethical questions:

most of the issues we've talked about in ethics are at the macro level, perpetuating a social group's agenda. however, biotechnology has the potential to make this divide a reality. it's no longer an ethical question but it has the power to make what we discuss in class a reality. to frame it as an ethical perspective, who gets to decide how is the power evenly distributed? power will always be present behind the use of technologies, but who will decide how this technology is used, and for whose good? and if its for a larger good, then, who can moderate this technology usage to ensure all social actors are represented?

I'm sure all of you have read about the Miss Malaysia controversy. Basically, the pageant organizers created a campaign where a beautiful female dominatrix domineers the "toy boy" by doing stuns like lead him on a leash around the shopping centre, seat on him, etc. On the website itself, you could choose severe ways to "punish" your toyboy, for example, whip him.

In the light of complains though about men's rights, the website creators had to issue an apology http://www.missworldmalaysia.com.my/toy_boy.asp

Inside the apology letter, they wrote "Let us now move on and harness the transformational power of beauty for the good of all"

Firstly, I believe this is a consequentialist approach, and it also fits our argument today about how commodification has led to liberation. Beauty is commodified here, and it becomes "power". A beautiful woman is a powerful woman as her beauty has high value as a commodity. This power accorded to her beauty changes boundaries and experiences, which may benefit both men and women.

Some questions raised during the presentation pertained to online spending. Online spending is starting to drive the new economy, as stats have proven. I believe that just like beauty, money is also power, and it is women who are starting to gain power to influence consumption patterns.

The Miss Malaysia campaign is the best example to sum up what's been happening: there is a redefinition of the gender divide, and yes, change might be slow and gradual, but it is happening.

Any thoughts ?

This article comments on the government use of the internet to comment and collabrate with the public.

According to the author, efficient use of tools to interact with the public will create a "community of interest" for online democracy, which might necessarily translate to real-life a pro-active political community, since the people who go online to discuss politics will already be interested, but are looking for new avenues to reach out to a larger group of people with the same interests.

Ethical question: When large groups of people collaborate online for a cause, it's activism and democracy at its very best. When the authorities come in, would online democracy be threatened as people might be fearful of what political officials might do or say? The annoymity of the Internet provides a safe political climate where people can discuss without suffering negative implications.

Secondly, how far should the government get involved with online participation? Besides creating an open environment where users can come online and comment, should we restrict government intervention to just pure moderation of comments? But even moderation would mean some form of power intervention. where should the line be drawn?

We all know that Google revealed the blogger who called model Liskula Cohen a skank, and everyone in the web community was up in arms because it seems that Google has breached its duty to protect individual privacy rights.

Many cases for example, a resort developer has obtained a court order requiring Google Inc. to help uncover the identities of anonymous contributors to an online newspaper that posted articles linking him to government corruption in the Turks and Caicos Islands.Google has been asked to turn over data that may help identify users of the newspaper's account with Gmail, the Internet search company's e-email service. Google has complied with this order.

To me, who Google is complying with already perpetuates a certain ideology. Besides that point, Google has made a contradictory stand by saying :

Special legal privacy protections for users may apply in cases where law enforcement or civil litigants ask Google for information about what books an individual user has looked at. Some jurisdictions have special "books laws" saying that this information is not available unless the person asking for it meets a special, high standard - such as proving to a court that there is a compelling need for the information, and that this need outweighs the reader's interest in reading anonymously under the United States First Amendment or other applicable laws. Where these "books laws" exist and apply to Google Books, we will raise them. We will also continue our strong history of fighting for high standards to protect users, regardless of whether a particular "books law" applies. In addition, we are committed to notifying the affected user if we receive such a request that may lead to disclosure of their information; if we are permitted to do so by law and if we have an effective way to contact the user, we will seek to do so in time for the user to challenge the request.

In summary, they are saying that they will defend disclosures of reading lists and user search queries, but comply with court orders if individual user's rights are involved.

Why is Google protecting broader rights like book logs, but not so much for user's rights?

I guess this is why some people argue that values may not necessarily be universal enough to set ethical guidelines.
Elaine Ong wrote:
> http://news.cnet.com/2100-7348_3-6202226.html
>
> This is about Australia putting measures in place which will help curb online pornography, which includes "Web police", ISP-level filters and even awareness campaigns for parents and caretakers. But there were lots of mentioning about child pornography and the responsibility of parents.
>
> To what extent should the ends be allowed to justify the means? It feels like the government is just representing the Christian majority, and by the way, I am sure Christians themselves watch porn too. What are the standards put in place to determine whether something is of adult content? Who set those standards? Based on 'general' beliefs and what the government/"web police'' think is best for the public?
>
> I feel that these measures actually just curtail freedom of expression and the public have the rights to gain access to information. Would we be happier if the government decides what we should look at online? How does it differ from framing in a movie? Censoring/filtering out something may be a way of reinforcing the government's standpoint and their views of what is 'bad' and should be kept out of view.
>
> But then again, censoring may not necessarily be a good cause of action. For example, censored vulgarities in songs are so easily deciphered. Also, what is offensive to some people, may be normal to others! What gives the government the right to determine what is acceptable or not? What's more, the public today do consist of concerted oppositions who are pro-porn, and they will still find ways to upload/view porn. For example would be the use of the word 'PRON' instead of PORN which is censored on certain digital platforms.
>
> This is a funny short article spoofing porn being banned in Australia..
> -- > http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1007082/wi-porn-banned-planes

Article : Go slow with tech law
Published : 23 Aug 2009
Source: Straits Times

Background : When Singapore signed a free trade agreement with the USA in 2003, intellectual property rights was a key issue for our country to resolve. A huge raid on the shops in Sim Lim Square was conducted, and the authorities are now looking into harsh enforcement laws to regulate the prevalance of illegal downloading in Singapore. The author argues that the authorities should think through this decision carefully because majority of those who download these materials are young adults, and this issue is not restricted to Singapore itself but it also happens in other countries. The author argues that it is the content providers, not the audiences who should be punished.

Ethical problem :
Firstly, this article has certain flaws. The author does not highlight the implications of punishing young adults versus content providers. It is not clear in the article why is the universality of the problem( it happens everywhere) an issue in creating a law. However, he concludes that the code of ethics should be practised by content providers, and not end users.

Ethical question:

However, I think this article raises a good ethical question. The assumptions, I think, are that young users might not understand the consequences of downloading illegal materials. However, if we argue that ethics is morally-based on a universal set of truths, then young adults should be liable for their actions. If we argue that the users are not at fault because they are not aware that they are committing a crime, should we then therefore, punish the parents of these young adults instead of the content providers because they did not instill such values or ethical principals? That is assuming, we follow Finnis's definition that the moral principal is that our choices are open to human fulfillment, or humanity whether in oneself or others must be respected.

Following this train of thought, we could also argue that since ethics is the study of moral standards, it could be that the morals instilled a decade ago, and morals now are different : 20 years ago, our grandparents said that it is wrong to steal. Therefore, our parents do not steal. 20 years later, with rising costs of living, our parents say : Its ok to download. You are not hurting anyone directly. And it's free. You are benefiting yourself. Therefore, we 'steal". Should we then argue that implementing any sort of law or guide would be therefore inefficient because the basic core human goods might have changed? Although, of course, this might be difficult to prove.

To make an educated guess : it could be that given the rise of mass media promoting a sort of selfish, goal-directed way to live, without caring about the world at large, values have changed, but our ethical guidelines have remained the same. Therefore our youth may feel, yes, it's ok to download but the authorities are taking a different standpoint. Therefore, I believe that if we appy duty-based morality here, we can then argue that policies are flawed because the maxim underlying the course of action can probably be transformed into a universal moral law : ie the maxim is, it's ok to download because the contents are there, it's free, and i SAVE. if we universalize it, it would be something like, it's ok to download if it helps you save money. How then can we correct such perceptions?

In conclusion, I think that in order to enforce a law on intellectual property rights, it's not an easy clear-cut case of pointing fingers at someone. Rather, we should seek to understand the ethical guidelines of the people who download things illegal and find out where it does not correlate with the government's stand on IT rights. For example, some young artistes release their songs for free and deliberately let it be spread through file-sharing servers. For me, I feel that the message they send out is, yes, it is ok to download my music for free, because I can see why you want to download it for free just to sample the music. There is nothing wrong, or intrinsically bad about the ethics of your action. Therefore, I would be much more liable to buy their music later on, as there is no pre-judgement such as " downloading my music is BAD, whatever, and whenever" which turns people off and probably leads to a much more prevalent issue.

I agree with this view, and I also add on that yes, it is probably more profitable for the capitalist, wired society to continue creating anti-virus programs, open more it repair shops etc, than to address underlying issues of dysfunctions in the society.

imagine if we could provide support for all the would-be hackers, would be criminals. we wouldn't have to keep updating our software and hardware every few months just to avoid falling prey to viruses.

besides, hacking tools are so easily available. you could run a hacker program without any prior pc knowledge. the question of why are there such easily available hacking tools should be replaced by addressing what drives the creators instead.

The link : http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/448207/1/.html

Case Summary: Red Nano is a people-search engine which allows others to find you in the public internet domain. Engineer Chua Kim Cheng tried searching for his own name under the "People Search" function at the Red Nano website and got a shock to his particulars and address listed. The addresses of residents living in the same housing block as him were also listed. Mr. Chua said that he has never given consent to SPH search, which runs the rednano search engine function. However, the authorities have clarified that there is currently no law for online privacy, although there are general guidelines for guarding the confidentiality of personal data .

Additionally, there is a Model Code for companies in the private sector which provides guidelines and principles on the proper management of personal information. However, this is not compulsory for companies to adhere to.

Ethical problem: No consent was given for personal information to be shared on the rednano search engine.

Ethical question:
1.) Should there be a strict law pertaining only to privacy online, and how should it be administered?

2.) SPH has responded that it is not at liberty to disclose its data sources. Thus, the problem here is that while consent was not given by Mr. Chua, he could have disclosed his information unwittingly via traditional marketing tools such as filling up survey forms, lucky draws etc. While it is not ethical for SPH to share public information without consent, Mr. Chua might have already signed away his rights. Thus, we need to question who should bear the blame : the consumer himself, the marketing companies( probably SPH's data sources), or the corporation which purchases such information? Is there a caveat emptor in this situation?

3.) SPH has also stated that "Its "People Search" section is an opportunity for the public to extend their visibility, socially or professionally, on the Internet. " The technology has its pros and cons. This follows that other people might not think that this issue is an ethical concern as it is beneficial for others to increase online visibility without lifting a finger. Rednano has to monitor the usage of such services and prevent abuse.